@Phillip OCarroll-
"I just don't see how the deficit can really be a vote winner for Republicans or a vote loser for Democrats. It's just too abstract a concept for most Americans. "

It's not an abstract concept because most Americans can see the effect of the deficit in the form of prices as a result of the Fed printing money and the Chinese being skittish on loaning more of it. There's nothing abstract about watching the prices on food and fuel rise.

The Republican lawmakers are now engaged in a entirely new game to default on the national debts so as to push the dude out of the running. However the already shrinking dollar could be their biggest victim.

It may be that Obama is a beatable president, but I'm not convinced on the strength of this article.

I just don't see how the deficit can really be a vote winner for Republicans or a vote loser for Democrats.

It's just too abstract a concept for most Americans. I think Dick Cheney summed up the general US attitude when he said "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter".

Borrowing in their own currency, Americans have forgotten what it's like to have a deficit turn around and bite. It's understandable that The Economist, a European newspaper would have a different attitude, but just because the deficit is important doesn't mean it's going to decide the election.

Also the environment and Guantanamo are Obama's broken promises to Democrats, and the kind of Democrats who are not going to transfer their allegiance to a Republican contender.

1. two party system seems to inhibit parties to help the country first and their own gang second. as republicans said no to everything expect the same strategy when they have the wh.
2. when political ideals became religious dogma (Reagan seems like some kind of saint) the whole essence of politics is lost. see what happen to Romney when he had contradicted the dogma of climate change. :)
3. Obama seems generally like a smart and reasonable guy - i remember his debate with the republicans on HC, he generally seems to welcome dialogue and opinions. he's management of some situation has proven more problematic.

let's be serious, with such a country not eve 'the economist' could govern!

I do not regard myself as an Obama supporter but I do think it is a bit naive for anyone to expect the President in today's hyper partisan world to commit political hara kiri and put forward a credible deficit reduction plan when Congress is presently populated with a party which has publicly declared that it's primary goal is ensure he is not re-elected. The man is a politician and will not take a risk for which he has almost no chance at success ( no politician will and that's the truth). Deficit reduction and entitlement reform is too big to be tackled presently without a fresh mandate from the people. It would require marked spending reductions in the medium term ( not the short term) and revenue increases. These are facts no politician on the left or the right will acknowledge presently, because they have given themselves over to ideological purity from the base. No country was ever successfully run by sticking to a pure ideology. There's time for capitalism and rugged individualism but there's also a place for government and institutions that protect the vulnerable all within limits defined by continuing national discourse that has as it's foundations the fact that a different point of view does not imply hatred for country or mental retardation. America seems not to be at this point and I'm not sure a change of Presidents would make a difference. Sometimes I wonder if the decline is inevitable.

@Cthorm
Ron Paul doesn't get mention for the same reason they don't here mention any of the other fringe republican candidates (though they did do a nice piece on Gary Johnson). Ron Paul has no chance of winning the republican primary, much less the general election. I give him more credit than most Republicans, at least he has a solid, internally consistent platform with even some admirable qualities. But he is a die-hard libertarian, and that wing of the Republican party has more chance of sprouting wings and flying to Mars than taking the White house. In the modern Republican party, you must pander to several puppet-masters to whom Ron Paul does not pay proper homage, including the defence industry and evangelicals. Maybe he will pick up some of the pieces when this modern abomination of a party collapses, good luck on that part.

I find it interesting that you never once mentioned Ron Paul. I'm sure you know who he is. He already announced his candidacy, yet you mention others who likely won't even run (Palin). Why snub the one Republican with the best credentials relating to deficit reduction and reducing government spending. You can disagree with his policy proposals or think his chances are slim, but not mentioning a declared candidate who ranks near the top in many polls is rather unethical, in my opinion.

Another piece of propaganda for the right. Do you still consider Ryan's plan credible?

"Why should any businessman support a chief executive who has let his friends in the labour movement run amok and who let his health-care bill be written by Democrats in Congress? Above all, why has he never produced a credible plan to tackle the budget deficit, currently close to 10% of GDP?"
Actually, dear TE, Obama has done nothing whatsover to make life for business more difficult (no single tax increase). That is just Republican propaganda. And he has provided a very clear plan of reducing cost - it's health reform. And everyone knows what is happening to it.
And yes, America can adress a lot of its problems simply by taxing its rich a little bit more. Picketty and Lanois did the computation for France and it is sure to work for the US as well. Saying goodbye to Bush tax cuts - one of the causes of the present mess, BTW - would be a first step.

aaroche: you make one error here: you assume unregulated economies are stable. Unfortunately, this is just not so. Unregulated capitalist economies undergo collapses every thirty years or so, and have done since the late 1700s. It sucks, but as any engineering student will tell you, complex systems with inertia and multiple feedback loops are just not stable. It's true of car engines, stock markets, and economies. They all need regulators, or they over-rev, overheat, and suddenly die (smoke and flames as a bonus).

The main reasons Obama has not been able to deal with Guantanamo are (a) Republicans in congress who blocked him from doing it, and (b) the evidence against most of the folks there was systematically poisoned through the use of torture.

The main reason Obama has not been able to deal with the deficit are (a) Republicans in congress, who blocked him from restoring taxes to Reagan-era levels, and (b) the economic meltdown brought about by the failure of the Bush administration to regulate the banks properly.

Obama is far from perfect, but you can't blame those two on him. I mainly blame him for not relentlessly pointing out that we're digging out from a Republican Recession.

I will also note that Congress blocked Obama from cutting $70 billion from the Defense budget... cut recommendations that came from the DoD itself!

Dr. D, I dislike the extremes and failures of the Republicans as much as anyone, but I have to tell you, people like you exemplify why I deeply refuse also to be a Democrat. Neither of your examples of government employment brings in any money; they serve and are paid for by private enterprise, and can only truly exist in proportion to the actual needs of private enterprise. That government can't create artificial needs without having them collapse eventually is what was meant. But instead of trying to look past the surface for a substantial point of governmental philosophy to argue about, you've marked yourself as a dreary, predictable left-wing demagogue, and in my view fully as dismissable as the people you were talking about.

Tax can be a great incentive to cure unemployment. If businesses were taxed at much higher rates, and allowed to take tax credits equivalent to new salaried employees, then the incentive to hire would be overwhelming.

I admit the greatest evil in the tax code is its complexity, but I also think the Republican policy of reverse-Robin-Hood does nothing. As we all know, rich people don't spend most of their money on the real economy. Most of their money is "soft money" that goes into the superficial economy: hedge funds and savings accounts. "Hard money" - the kind of stuff normal people spend on cars, hardware, food, travel, entertainment - is much more valuable than "soft money" because it directly benefits the economy. You give a rich man a $1000, he's gonna save it and it's just gonna sit there. You give a poor man $1000 and he's gonna spend it on stuff, causing more production, service, and overall economic circulation. If the blood doesn't flow, the body's gonna die. Each person's potential spending is about equal to any other. With every man spending that $1000, more money circulates in the system, and new wealth is created for everyone. Robin Hood? Economic Genius.

Actually, for once the Republicans have something right: Mr. Boehner is right to cut spending first. In the past, Congress has raised taxes, ostensibly to cut the deficit, and when the new revenue starts coming in, the politicians spend it instead of applying it to the deficit. And the public debt keeps piling up month after month. This time, we'll try it the other way around: cut spending first, and then raise taxes--and maybe they'll find that they don't need the new tax revenue, after all.

This is a terrible article.... The republicans have ruined america. The economy is their fault. The wars are their fault. They consistently lie to the citizenry. The standard of living is in decline. The country is becoming more illiterate. It is all the fault of the Republicans - stupid people like George W. Bush, thieves like Dick Chenney, incompetents like Rumsfeld. Now you want the return of these morons? The people that believe plumbers know about curriculum development and complex foreign policy issues - this is who should run America? The Economist is full of crap. Intelligencia?? Apologist for its advertisors - And you call yourselves journalists? You disgust me.